Linguistic Approach to Translation Theory

By Peter Hodges,
French to English Translator,
Tea Gardens, Australia

peterjhodges at bigpond com

http://www.tillermans.com.au

www.translationdirectory.com/.../article2019.php

Joseph F. Graham in his article Theory for Translation (p.24) asks the question if the
time-honoured act of translation really is a subject that begs to be theorized. It seems
to me that this is indeed the case if the wealth of literature on the subject available
today is any indication. Early attempts at theory can be traced back over 2000 years to
Cicero and Horace, with the key question being whether a translator should be faithful
to the original text by adopting a “literal” (word-for-word) approach or whether a
“free” (sense-for-sense) approach should be taken. This discussion continued right
through to the second half of the 20th century when more systematic analyses were
undertaken by Western European theoreticians. These systematic analyses, which
elevated translation studies from its role of being primarily a language-learning
activity, centred on theories of translation in new linguistic, literary, cultural and
philosophical contexts (Munday p.162). It is the linguistic approach that is the subject
during the course of this discussion.

The linguistic approach to translation theory focusing on the key issues of meaning,
equivalence and shift began to emerge around 50 years ago. This branch of
linguistics, known as structural linguistics, features the work of Roman Jakobson,
Eugene Nida, Newmark, Koller, Vinay, Darbelnet, Catford and van Leuven-Zwart. It
wasn’t long however, before some theorists began to realize that language wasn’t just
about structure – it was also about the way language is used in a given social
context. This side of the linguistic approach is termed functional linguistics (Berghout
lecture 7/9/05), with the work of Katharina Reiss, Justa Holz-Mänttäri, Vermeer,
Nord, Halliday, Julianne House, Mona Baker, Hatim and Mason figuring
prominently.

Of course other theorists have contributed to the development of a linguistic approach

to translation, but the abovementioned have been singled out for discussion primarily
because of their influence, and also because they are perhaps the most representative
of the trends of the time.

Douglas Robinson writes that for some translators “the entire purpose of translation is
achieving equivalence. The target text must match the source text as fully as
possible” (p.73). Linguistic meaning and equivalence are the key issues for the
Russian structuralist Roman Jakobson who, in his 1959 work On Linguistic Works of
Translation, states that there are 3 types of translation:
 1) intralingual – rewording or paraphrasing, summarizing, expanding or
commenting within a language

2) interlingual – the traditional concept of translation from ST to TT or the

“shifting of meaning from one language to another” (Stockinger p.4)

3) intersemiotic – the changing of a written text into a different form, such as art
or dance (Berghout lecture 27/7/05; Stockinger p.4).

For Jakobson, meaning and equivalence are linked to the interlingual form of
translation, which “involves two equivalent messages in two different codes”
(1959/2000: p.114). He considers Saussure’s ideas of the arbitrariness of the signifier
(name) for the signified (object or concept) and how this equivalence can be
transferred between different languages, for example the concept of a fence may be
completely different to someone living in the suburbs or a prison inmate. He expands
on Saussure’s work in that he considers that concepts may be transferred by
rewording, without, however, attaining full equivalence. His theory is linked to
grammatical and lexical differences between languages, as well as to the field of
semantics.

Equivalence is also a preoccupation of the American Bible translator Eugene Nida

who rejects the “free” versus “literal” debate in favour of the concept of formal and
dynamic equivalence – a concept that shifts the emphasis to the target audience. This
was done in order to make reading and understanding the Bible easier for people with
no knowledge of it (www.nidainstitute.org). Formal equivalence centres on the form
and content of the message of the ST while dynamic equivalence, later termed
functional equivalence (Venuti p.148), “aims at complete naturalness of expression”
(Munday p.42) in the TT. His 1964 Toward a Science of Translating and his co-
authorship with Taber in 1969 of Theory and Practice of Translation aim at creating a
scientific approach incorporating linguistic trends for translators to use in their work
(Munday p.38). He views Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar as a way of
analyzing the underlying structures of the ST in order to reconstruct them in the TT,
so that a similar response between the target audience and TT and source audience
and ST can be achieved.

His linguistic theory moves towards the fields of semantics and pragmatics, which
leads him to develop systems for the analysis of meaning. These include:

1) Hierarchical structures (superordinates and hyponyms), such as the hyponyms

“brother” or “sister” and the superordinate “sibling” (Libert lecture
24/3/05). In a cultural context it may not be possible to translate “sister”, so
“sibling” may need to be used.

2) Componential analysis, which identifies characteristics of words that are

somehow connected, such as “brother” in Afro-American talk does not
necessarily refer to a male relation born of the same parents.

3) Semantic structural differences where the connotative and denotative meanings

of homonyms are identified, for example “bat” the animal and the piece of
sporting equipment (Berghout lecture 14/9/05).
The British translation theorist Peter Newmark, influenced by the work of Nida, feels
that the difference between the source language and the target language would always
be a major problem, thus making total equivalence virtually impossible (Munday
p.44). He replaces the terms “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” with
“semantic translation” and “communicative translation”, and alters the focus of the
translation back to the ST with his support for a literal approach.

Nida’s attempt at a scientific approach was important in Germany and influenced the
work of Werner Koller for whom equivalence “may be ‘denotative’, depending on
similarities of register, dialect and style; ‘text-normative’, based on ‘usage norms’ for
particular text types; and ‘pragmatic’ ensuring comprehensibility in the receiving
culture” (Koller in Venuti p.147). He also works in the area of correspondence, a
linguistic field dedicated to examining similarities and differences between two
language systems. One example of this would be looking at the area of “false friends”,
such as the French verb rester, which does not mean “to rest” but “to remain”.

Although discussion on equivalence has subsided, it still remains a topic that manages
to attract a certain amount of attention from some of translation theory’s leading
figures. Mona Baker and Bassnett both acknowledge its importance while, at the same
time, placing it in the context of cultural and other factors.

The emphasis of the structural approach to translation changes towards the end of the
1950s and early 1960s with the work of Vinay, Darbelnet and Catford, and the
concept of translation shift, which examines the linguistic changes that take place in
the translation between the ST and TT (Munday p.55). According to Venuti
“Translation theories that privilege equivalence must inevitably come to terms with
the existence of ‘shifts’ between the foreign and translated texts” (p.148).

Vinay and Darbelnet in their book Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais

(1958) compare the differences between English and French and identify two
translation techniques that somewhat resemble the literal and free methods (Vinay and
Darbelnet in Venuti p.128). Direct (literal) translation discusses three possible
strategies:

1) Literal translation or word-for-word

2) Calque, where the SL expression is literally transferred to the TL, such as the
English character ‘Snow White’ in French becomes ‘Blanche Neige’, because
the normal word configuration in English of ‘white snow’ would be
transferred as ‘neige blanche’

3) Borrowing – the SL word is transferred directly into the TL, like ‘kamikaze’.

Oblique (free) translation covers four strategies:

1) Transposition – interchange of parts of speech that don’t effect the meaning, a

noun phrase (après son départ) for a verb phrase (after he left)

2) Modulation – reversal of point of view (it isn’t expensive / it’s cheap)

 3) Equivalence – same meaning conveyed by a different expression, which is most
useful for proverbs and idioms (‘vous avez une araignée au plafond’ is
recognizable in English as ‘you have bats in the belfry’)

4) Adaptation – cultural references may need to be altered to become relevant (‘ce

n’est pas juste’ for ‘it’s not cricket’) (Vinay and Darbelnet in Venuti pp129-
135).

Two other important features arise from the work of Vinay and Darbelnet. The first of
these is the idea of “servitude”, which refers to the compulsory changes from ST to
TT; and “option”, which refers to the personal choices the translator makes, such as
the modulation example above. Option is an important element in translation because
it allows for possible subjective interpretation of the text, especially literary texts
(Munday pp. 59-60).

In 1965 the term “shift” was first applied to the theory of translation by Catford in his
work A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Here he discusses two types of shift:

1) Shift of level, where a grammatical concept may be conveyed by a lexeme (the

French future tense endings are represented in English by the auxiliary verb
‘will’).

2) Category shifts, of which there are four types – structural shifts (in French the
definite article is almost always used in conjunction with the noun); class
shifts (a shift from one part of speech to another); unit or rank (longer
sentences are broken into smaller sentences for ease of translation); selection
of non-corresponding terms (such as count nouns).

His systematic linguistic approach to translation considers the relationship between

textual equivalence and formal correspondence. Textual equivalence is where the TT
is equivalent to the ST, while formal correspondence is where the TT is as close as
possible to the ST (Munday p.60). Catford also considers the law of probability in
translation, a feature that may be linked to the scientific interest in machine translation
at the time.

Some thirty years after Vinay and Darbelnet proposed the direct and oblique strategies
for translation, Kitty van Leuven-Zwart developed a more complex theory, using
different terminology, based on their work. Her idea is that the final translation is the
end result of numerous shifts away from the ST, and that the cumulative effect of
minor changes will alter the end product (www.erudit.org). She suggested two models
for translation shifts:

1) Comparative – where a comparison of the shifts within a sense unit or transeme

(phrase, clause, sentence) between ST and TT is made. She then conducts a
very detailed analysis of the “architranseme” or the core meaning of the word,
and how this meaning can be transferred to the TL. She proposes a model of
shift based on micro-level semantic transfer.

2) Descriptive – situated in the linguistic fields of stylistics and pragmatics deals

with what the author is trying to say, and why and how this can be transferred
 to the TT. It deals with differences between the source and target cultures and
serves as a model on a macro level for literary works (Berghout lecture
31/8/05; Munday pp 63-66).

The 1970s and 1980s sees a move away from the structural side of the linguistic
approach as functional or communicative consideration is given to the text. Katharina
Reiss continues to work on equivalence, but on the textual level rather than on the
word or sentence level. She proposes a translation strategy for different text types, and
says that there are four main textual functions:

1) Informative – designed for the relaying of fact. The TT of this type should be
totally representative of the ST, avoiding omissions and providing
explanations if required.

2) Expressive – a “higher” level of literary text such as poetry in which the TT

should aim at recreating the effect that the author of the ST was striving to
achieve. In this case Reiss says “the poetic function determines the whole
text” (Reiss in Venuti p.172).

3) Operative – designed to induce a certain behavioral response in the reader, such

as an advertisement that influences the reader to purchase a particular product
or service. The TT should therefore produce the same impact on its reader as
the reader of the ST.

4) Audomedial – films, television advertisements, etc supplemented with images

and music of the target culture in the TT (de Pedros p.32).

Criticism has sometimes been levelled at Reiss because the chosen method for
translation may not depend only on the text type, which may also have a
multifunctional purpose (Berghout lecture 7/9/05; Munday pp73-76).

Within the realm of functional linguistics is Justa Holz-Mänttäri’s theory of

translational action that takes into account practical issues while, at the same time,
placing the emphasis firmly on the reader of the TT. This means, for example, that
things like the source text type may be altered if it is deemed to be inappropriate for
the target culture. She sees translation as an action that involves a series of players,
each of whom performs a specific role in the process. The language used to label the
players very much resembles that of Western economic jargon – initiator,
commissioner, ST producer, TT producer, TT user, TT receiver, that is adding another
dimension to the theory of translation as yet rarely mentioned (Munday pp77-78).

The Greek expression “skopos” that means “aim” or “purpose” was introduced to
translation theory by Hans Vermeer in the 1970s. Skopos theory, which is linked to
Holz-Mänttäri’s translational action theory (Vermeer p.227), centres on the purpose of
the translation and the function that the TT will fulfil in the target culture, which may
not necessarily be the same as the purpose of the ST in the source culture. The
emphasis once again stays with the reader of the TT, as the translator decides on what
strategies to employ to “reach a ‘set of addressees’ in the target culture” (Venuti
p223). Cultural issues in a sociolinguistic context therefore need to be
considered. Skopos is important because it means that the same ST can be translated
in different ways depending on the purpose and the guidelines provided by the
commissioner of the translation.

In 1984 Vermeer and Reiss co-authored Grundlegung einer allgemeine

Translationstheorie (Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation) based
primarily on skopos, which tries to create a general theory of translation for all
texts. As a result, criticism has been levelled at skopos on the ground that it applies
only to non-literary work (Munday p.81); it downplays the importance of the ST; and
does not pay enough attention to linguistic detail. I tend to disagree with this last
point because I look at skopos as a means of reflecting the ability of the translator. If
he/she is able to produce a TT that meets the requirements stated at the outset of the
assignment, which may lie somewhere between the two extremes of a detailed report
or the summary of a sight translation, whilst working with possible time and financial
constraints, then the linguistic level is not an area that merits criticism.

Christiane Nord in Text Analysis in Translation (1989/91) states that there are two
types of translation:

1) Documentary – where the reader knows that the text has been translated.

2) Instrumental – where the reader believes that the translated text is an original.

She places emphasis on the ST as she proposes a ST analysis that can help the
translator decide on which methods to employ. Some of the features for review are
subject matter, content, presupposition, composition, illustrations, italics, and
sentence structure (Munday p.83). In Translation as a Purposeful Activity (1997) her
theory is developed as she acknowledges the importance of skopos. The information
provided by the commissioner allows the translator to rank issues of concern in order
before deciding on inclusions, omissions, elaborations, and whether the translation
should have ST or TT priority. By also giving consideration to Holz-Mänttäri’s role of
players, she manages to provide a viewpoint that accommodates three important
concepts in the functional approach to translation.

Linked to Nord’s theory of ST analysis is discourse and register analysis which

examines how language conveys meaning in a social context. One of the proponents
of this approach was the Head of the Linguistics Department of Sydney University,
Michael Halliday, who bases his work on Systemic Functional Grammar – the
relationship between the language used by the author of a text and the social and
cultural setting. Halliday says that the text type influences the register of the language
– the word choice and syntax. He also says that the register can be divided into three
variables:

1) Field – the subject of the text

2) Tenor – the author of the text and the intended reader

3) Mode – the form of the text

all of which are important on the semantic level. Some criticism has been directed at
Halliday’s complex terminology and his approach, mainly because it is English-
language based (Munday pp89-91; Berghout lecture 7/9/05).

Juliane House’s Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited (1997) also

examines ST and TT register, and expands on Halliday’s ideas of field, tenor and
mode. She creates a model for translation, which compares variables between ST and
TT before deciding on whether to employ an overt or covert translation (Stockinger
p.18). An overt translation is one that clearly centres on the ST, in no way trying to
adapt the socio-cultural function to suit the target audience (like Nord’s documentary
translation). This means that the target audience is well aware that what they are
reading is a translation that is perhaps fixed in a foreign time and context. Such is the
case with Émile Zola’s Germinal, first published in French in 1885 and translated into
English by Leonard Tancock in 1954. Readers of the English know that they are
reading a translation of a description of coal mining conditions in northern France in
the 1800s, which retains all proper nouns of the original French text (Ma Brûlé,
Philomène, Bonnemort, Mouque – p.282). This is just one of the techniques used to
reveal the overt nature of the text. A covert translation (like Nord’s instrumental
translation) is one in which the TT is perceived to be an original ST in the target
culture. Such is the case with the guide leaflets distributed to visitors at Chenonceau
Castle in the Loire Valley, which seem to have been created individually for an
English audience and a French audience (and possibly German, Spanish, Italian and
Japanese audiences), so much so that it is almost impossible to tell which is the ST
and which is the TT.

In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (1992) by Mona Baker, taking

advantage of Halliday’s work, raises a number of important issues. She examines
textual structure and function and how word forms may vary between languages, such
as the substitution of the imperative for the infinitive in instruction manuals between
English and French. Gender issues are raised as she discusses ways in which
ambiguous gender situations can be overcome, such as adjectival agreement in
French. She also discusses three pragmatic concepts where pragmatics is “the way
utterances are used in communicative situations” (Baker in Munday p.95):

1) Coherence relates to the audience’s understanding of the world, which may be

different for ST and TT readers.

2) Presupposition is where the receiver of the message is assumed to have some

prior knowledge. “It’s a shame about Uncle John!” assumes the reader knows
that something bad has happened to that person called Uncle John. This raises
problems in translation because TT readers may not have the same knowledge
as ST readers. Possible solutions are rewording or footnotes.

3) Implicature is where the meaning is implied rather than stated. “John wanted
Mary to leave” may imply that “John is now happy that Mary left” (Libert
lecture 24/3/05), which can lead to a mistranslation of the intention of the
message.

Basil Hatim and Ian Mason co-authored two works: Discourse and the Translator
(1990) and The Translator as Communicator (1997), in which some sociolinguistic
factors are applied to translation. They look at the ways that non-verbal meaning can
be transferred, such as the change from active to passive voice which can shift or
downplay the focus of the action. They also examine the way lexical choices are
conveyed to the target culture, for example “Australia was discovered in 1770 by
Captain Cook” to an Aboriginal audience (Berghout lecture 12/10/05). However, I
believe that they tend to revert to the literal versus free discussion with their
identification of “dynamic” and “stable elements within a text, which serve as
indicators for a translation strategy (Munday p.101). Mason, in his essay Text
Parameters in Translation: Transitivity and Institutional Cultures (2003) thinks that
Halliday’s Systemic Grammar should be viewed in the context of translational
institutions, such as the European Union where it “might make a more significant
contribution to translation studies” (Venuti p.333). Interestingly, the outcome of this
paper reveals a tendency for EU translators to “stay fairly close to their source texts”
(Mason In Venuti p.481).

Like all other theories, discourse and register analysis has received its share of
criticism. It has been labelled complicated and unable to deal with literary
interpretation. The possibility of the author’s real intention being determined, along
with its fixation in the English language are also subject to some scrutiny.

The linguistic approach to translation theory incorporates the following concepts:

meaning, equivalence, shift, text purpose and analysis, and discourse register; which
can be examined in the contexts of structural and functional linguistics, semantics,
pragmatics, correspondence, sociolinguistics and stylistics. Meanwhile, as translation
strives to define its theory through the linguistic approach, Eugene Nida’s scientific
approach has evolved into a quest for a more systematic classification of all
translation theories, which he says should be based on linguistics, philology and
semiotics (Nida p.108).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Material

Berghout, Anita. Lectures at Newcastle University 27/7/05; 31/8/05; 7/9/05; 14/9/05;

12/10/05

de Pedros, Raquel. “Beyond the Words: The Translation of Television Adverts.”

Babel Revue Internationale de la Traduction. Vol. 42 1996. pp 27-43 John Benjamins
Publishing Company

Graham, Joseph F. “Theory for Translation.” Translation Spectrum. Essays in Theory

and Practice. Gaddis Rose (ed.) pp 23-30. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1981.

Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold: London,

1994.

Jakobson, Roman. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” 1959. pp 113-119.

Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). L. Venuti. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Libert, Alan. Lectures at Newcastle University 24/3/05; May 2005

Mason, Ian. “Text Parameters in Translation: Transitivity and Institutional

Cultures.” pp 477-481 Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). L. Venuti. New
York: Routledge, 2000.

Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications.

London: Routledge, 2001.

Nida, E.A. Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,

2001. pp 107-114.

Nord, Christiane. Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St Jerome, 1997.

Reiss, Katharina. “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in

Translation.” 1971. Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). L. Venuti. New York:
Routledge, 2000. Pp. 168-179.

Robinson, Douglas. Becoming a Translator. An Introduction to the Theory and

Practice of Translation. (2nd Edition). London: Routledge, 2003.

Snyder, William. “Linguistics in Translation.” Translation Spectrum. Essays in

Theory and Practice. Gaddis Rose (ed.) pp 127-134.

Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London: Oxford
University Press, 1975.

Stockinger, Peter. Semiotics of Cultures. Culture, Language and Translation. Paris:

ESCoM, 2003.

Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). New York:
Routledge, 2000.

Vermeer, Hans J. “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” pp 227-237.

Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). L. Venuti. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Vinay, Jean-Paul and Darbelnet, Jean. “A Methodology for Translation.” 1958.

Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). L. Venuti. New York: Routledge, 2000. pp
128-137.

www.erudit.org

www.nidainstitute.org

Secondary Material

Visitor’s Guide to Chenonceau Castle / Château de Chenonceau. No details.

Zola, Émile. Germinal. Paris: Gallimard, 1978.

Zola, Émile. Germinal. Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1954. Translated by Leonard
Tancock.

Published - July 2009